Noname manuscript No.

(will be inserted by the editor)

Characterizing heat release rates using an inverse fire modeling

technique
Kristopher J. Overholt and Ofodike A. Ezekoye

Received: date / Accepted: date

Abstract A ubiquitous source of uncertainty in fire

model and comparing the results to a timeline of obmodeling is specifying the proper heat release rate (HRR) servations. This process can result in significant errors
for the fuel packages of interest. An inverse HRR calcuor nonphysical results from fire models and might not
lation method is presented to determine an inverse HRR
include a sufficiently wide range of conditions that adsolution that satisfies measured temperature data. The
equately describe the fire effects or fire behavior for a
methodology uses a predictor-corrector method and the
given scenario.
Consolidated Model of Fire and Smoke Transport (CFAST)
Previous work by Jahn et al. [1] has demonstrated
zone model to calculate hot gas layer (HGL) temperaa method to forecast the fire size in an enclosure using
tures in single compartment configurations. The inverse
sensor-driven inputs. That study used real-time sensor
method runs at super-real-time speeds while calculating
data (e.g., heat detectors, smoke detectors) to steer a
an inverse HRR solution that reasonably matches the
fire model and account for changes in the environment
original HRR curve. Examples of the inverse method
of a fire scenario. The goal of that study was to use inare demonstrated by using a multiple step HRR case,
formation from the evolving fire scenario to accelerate
complex HRR curves, experimental temperature data
model predictions. A study by Cowlard et al. [2] dewith a constant HRR, and a case with an experimenscribes the process of using real-time sensor data to astally measured HRR. In principle, the methodology can
sist firefighting operations through the use of high perbe applied using any reasonably accurate fire model to
formance computers running numerous fire simulations
invert for the HRR.
in parallel and fetching pre-computed scenarios. That
study also demonstrated the sensitivity of the model
Keywords compartment fires fire growth fire
results to the input parameters and how sensor data
modeling heat release rate inverse fire modeling
could be used to steer and correct the simulations.
problems
Additional studies have been performed on sensordriven fire simulations to determine the location and
size of the fire. A paper by Davis and Forney [3] out1 Introduction
lines a process for using correlations and zone models
as a sensor-driven zone model. A study by Koo et al. [4]
Currently, the use of fire models in scenarios involving
used a sensor-driven steering method that performed at
firefighter injuries, line-of-duty deaths, or forensic apsuper-real-time speeds using high performance computplications requires a tedious and manual iterative proing resources with the ability to run 1,000 scenarios per
cess of modifying the input parameters to create the
minute. A study by Richards et al. [5] used transient
desired or expected results from a zone or field fire
temperature data from ceiling sensors to determine the
heat release rate (HRR) and location of fires in largeDepartment of Mechanical Engineering
The University of Texas at Austin
scale compartments, but the inverse HRR solution had
Austin, TX 78712
an error of 300% to 500% of the measured HRR. Studies
E-mail: dezekoye@mail.utexas.edu
by Neviackas [6], Neviackas and Trouve [7], and Leblanc
and Trouve [8] used hot gas layer (HGL) temperatures

in an enclosure (single and multiple compartments) and

a genetic algorithm to search for an average inverse
HRR. The genetic algorithm required multiple hours
of runtime, and the solution was limited to a constant,
time-averaged HRR. In general, the approaches used
in these studies are infeasible for general applications
because of the amount of computational expenditure
required or the inaccuracy of their inversions. However,
the need for such inversion capability is evident. The
focus of this study is to develop a quick, inexpensive
method to compute transient HRR data using known
temperature data in an enclosure.
A study by Lee and Lee [9] demonstrated the use of
a sequential inverse method to determine the size and
location of a compartment fire. In that study, the HRR
in a compartment was calculated sequentially by using
a discretized form of Alperts correlation [10] for gas
temperatures in ceiling jet flows. The results exhibit
a large amount of noise (100% error in the resulting
HRR solution), and the correlations apply only to a limited scope of physical scenarios. However, these types
of correlations can still be useful in the predictor step of
an inverse HRR methodology, which was implemented
in the inverse method in this paper and is described in
the following section.
An inverse recovery methodology is presented that
uses a fire model to search for a HRR that satisfies
sampled temperature data in an enclosure. The Consolidated Model of Fire and Smoke Transport (CFAST)
zone model [11], which is maintained by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, was used to reconstruct a time-varying inverse HRR solution.
First, a simple case with step increments in the
HRR and cases with various complex HRR curves are
used to demonstrate the inverse solution method. Then,
temperatures from experimental enclosure fire tests are
used to determine an inverse HRR solution. Finally, a
case with an experimentally measured HRR are used to
demonstrate the robustness and accuracy of the method
for the calculation of transient HRR solutions.

2 Inverse Heat Release Rate Solution

Methodology
For a given HGL time-temperature curve, numerous inverse solutions exist that can satisfy the input conditions. One approximation for a HRR solution that satisfies the time-temperature curve can be expressed by
parameterizing the HRR using a piecewise linear function, as shown in Eq. 1.




t ti+1
t ti

Q(t) = Qi
+ Qi+1
,
(1)
ti ti+1
ti+1 ti

Kristopher J. Overholt and Ofodike A. Ezekoye

where Q(t)
is the HRR (kW), and Q i are the calculated HRR values at each time ti that the temperature
data are sampled. Mathematically, the problem can be
cast as a least squares problem in which the relative
between the measured and predicted temerror S(Q)
peratures is minimized, as shown in Eq. 2.
Pn
2
(Yi Ti (Q))
= i=0P
,
(2)
S(Q)
n
2
i=0 (Yi )
where Yi are the measured temperatures at time i, n
are the estiis the number of time samples, and Ti (Q)
mated temperatures found from the direct solution of

the problem using some proposed time evolution of Q.

With gradient information (i.e., a sensitivity or Jacobian matrix) on the effects of the transient heat re on the estimated temperatures, various
lease rate Q
solution techniques are available. In this optimization
problem, the vector of a single variable (HRR) is sought.
Note that the vector of the HRR contains the transient
HRR over times in which temperature data are available. A predictor-corrector method was used with a set
of specified input times and corresponding HGL temperatures. Figure 1 shows a flow diagram of this iterative HRR search procedure. A simple iterative proce
dure, as described by Ozisik
and Oranlde [12], was used
to obtain the vector of unknown parameters, as shown
in Eq. 3.
k+1 = Q
k + J1 (Y T(Q
k )),
Q

(3)

)) = T is the difference between the

where (Y T(Q
measured and predicted temperatures.
The inverse of the sensitivity coefficient (J1 in Eq. 3)
in these types of problems is typically not known. The
temperature sensitivity to HRR is generally a complex
relationship that depends on the full vector of HRRs.
However, a linear inverse problem that is easily invertible is available by using an analytical correlation by
McCaffrey, Quintiere, and Harkleroad (MQH) [13, 14],
which is shown in Eq. 4. This physical correlation was

used to compute the required change in the HRR (Q)

based on the difference between the measured and predicted temperatures (T).
!1/3
Q 2

Tg = 6.85
,
(4)
Ao Ho hk AT
k

where Tg is the change in the HGL temperature ( C),

Q is the HRR (kW), Ao is the ventilation area (m2 ),
Ho is the ventilation height (m), hk is the effective heat
transfer coefficient of the boundaries (W/m2 -K), and
AT is the boundary surface area (m2 ). The ventilation
conditions and material properties of the boundary conditions were specified for each case and are described in
more detail in the following sections.

Characterizing heat release rates using an inverse fire modeling technique

Predictor
step
MQH correlation
Corrector
step
CFAST

(inverse solution)
Fig. 1: Flowchart illustrating the inverse HRR search procedure.
The inverse HRR search procedure is summarized
in the following steps:
Step 1: For a temperature difference (Y T) between the measured and predicted temperatures,
for all times ti by
the predictor step computes Q
using the sensitivity, J, (i.e., dT/dQ) found from the
MQH correlation in Eq. 4. An intermediate value of
k+1 based on the MQH correlation is then comQ
puted using Eq. 3.
Step 2: For the corrector step, the CFAST model
k+1 to
is run with the MQH-derived HRR values Q
k+1
generate temperatures T
at the next iteration.
Step 3: If the error is less than a specified toler 1 103 ), then the resulting Q
is
ance (S(Q)
returned. Otherwise, Steps 1 and 2 are repeated as
the predictor-corrector procedure iterates. The result of the inverse HRR method is a piecewise linear
function of HRR vs. time, as shown in Eq. 1.
The Python programming language, which is a highlevel scripting language, was used to generate CFAST
input files, run CFAST multiple times while searching
for a HRR solution, parse the output from CFAST, and
repeat this process to create an inverse HRR solution.
This method is demonstrated with various examples in
the following sections.

3 Zone Model Setup

The zone model, CFAST version 6.2.0, was used in this
study. The source code for version 6.2.0 of CFAST was
used to compile the CFAST program for the Mac OS X
operating system, and the command line binary was
controlled by an automatic script rather than using

the graphical interface. This approach allowed for the

inverse search method to perform efficiently and autonomously.
In the CFAST zone model, all of the input parameters (e.g., combustion, solid phase, geometry) were fixed
to simplify the search process, and the HRR was the
only parameter that was varied. The CFAST zone model
was configured as follows: methane was used as the
fuel with a heat of combustion of 50 kJ/g, and the
boundary conditions, ambient temperature, ventilation
conditions, and compartment geometry were configured
for each of the specific cases, which are described in
the following sections. The material properties of the
boundaries were varied and are shown in Table 1. These
boundary conditions were also used in the MQH correlation for the predictor step of the inverse method.

4 Multiple step function increments in the heat

release rate
First, a simple case is considered in which a fire is simulated with piecewise constant HRRs of 100 kW, 200
kW, and 300 kW at times of 100 seconds, 200 seconds,
and 400 seconds, respectively. The resulting HGL temperatures from this fire were used as inputs to verify
the accuracy of the inverse methodology. The sample
resolution of the input temperatures was 10 seconds.
The actual HRR curve is shown as a solid line in Fig.
2b, and the resulting temperatures (which were inputs
to the inverse method) are shown in Fig. 2a as points.
Following the procedure described in the previous
section, beginning at time zero, the predictor step computes a HRR that satisfies the first input temperature
point at the first sample time (i.e., 10 seconds). Next,

Kristopher J. Overholt and Ofodike A. Ezekoye

Table 1: Thermal properties used for various material boundary conditions.

Material
Gypsum
Type X gypsum
Aluminum
Glass fiberboard

k (W/m-K)

cp (J/kg-K)

(kg/m3 )

(cm)

(-)

0.16
0.14
231
0.04

900
900
1,033
720

790
770
2,702
105

1.6
1.3
0.3
8.8

0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9

the predictor step computes a HRR that satisfies the

temperature condition at 20 seconds. This process continues until all of the time-temperature points have associated HRRs. Then, the corrector step involves running the CFAST model to compute the resulting HGL
temperatures, and the new error between the measured
and the predicted temperatures is calculated. This process continues until a complete inverse HRR solution
curve is determined, which is shown as a dashed line in
Fig. 2b. Note that the method overpredicts the HRR
near sudden step changes in the HRR. In actual experiments, the HRR is not likely to increase instantaneously, as indicated by the experimentally measured
temperatures shown in the following sections. The relative error, as defined by Peacock et al. [15], of the
resulting inverse HRR solution is 0.08 in which the relative error is defined as shown in Eq. 5.
sP
n

2
Q||

||]Q
i=0 (Qi Qi )
=
,
(5)
Pn

(Q i )2
||Q||

(a)

i=0

are the inwhere Q are the actual HRR values and Q

verse HRR values.
For comparison, the MQH correlation was also used
with the same inputs and boundary conditions as the
inverse HRR method. Equation 4 was used to compute
the HRR at each time step, and the results are shown
in Fig. 2b as a dash-dot line, which has a relative error of 0.25. Although the inverse method is a better
approximation to the actual HRR, the MQH correlation is still useful in the predictor step of the inverse
HRR method, as described in the previous section. By
using the predictor-corrector method, this inverse HRR
method can be extended to problems that exceed the
limitations of the existing correlations by using physicsbased models such as CFAST or Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) [16].
To demonstrate the sensitivity of the inverse HRR
solution to different boundary conditions, two additional
cases were run to represent the upper and lower limits for boundary conditions: one case with aluminum
boundaries, and one case with glass fiberboard boundaries. The thermal properties for these materials are
shown in Table 1. The resulting inverse HRR solutions
(Fig. 3) have a relative error of 0.09 for aluminum and

(b)

Fig. 2: Multiple step function HRR case: (a) HGL temperatures from CFAST (points) and inverse method
(dashed line); (b) Inverse HRR curve (dashed line) compared to the actual HRR curve (solid line).

0.23 for glass fiberboard compared to a relative error of

0.08 for gypsum.
To demonstrate the sensitivity of the inverse HRR
solution to noise in the input temperature data, three
cases were run with a 5%, 10%, and 15% level of noise

Characterizing heat release rates using an inverse fire modeling technique

Fig. 3: Sensitivity of inverse HRR solution to various

material boundary conditions.

(a)

Table 2: Maximum change in temperature and inverse

HRR for various amounts of noise.
Amount of noise (%)

Max. T ( C)

Max. Q (kW )

5%
10%
15%

6
13
18

42
129
228

in the original input temperature data from CFAST.

The noise was applied to the input temperature data
assuming a uniform density function centered between
T + T and T T (where T /Tmean is specified for
5%, 10%, or 15%) using the method shown in Eq. 6.



1
T
Ti,noise (t) = Ti (t) + F (T )
,
2
Tmean

(6)

where Ti (t) is the original temperature, F (T ) is the cumulative distribution function and is a random number
between 0 and 1, and Tmean is the mean value of the
input temperature data.
After the original temperature data were perturbed
and a set of Ti,noise (t) input temperatures was obtained
(Fig. 4a), the inverse HRR method was used to determine a HRR solution. The resulting three inverse solutions with different levels of noise are shown in Fig. 4b,
where the solid line represents the original inverse HRR
solution, the dashed line represents 5% noise in the
temperature data (relative error of 0.13), the dash-dot
line represents 10% noise (relative error of 0.22), and
the dotted line represents 15% noise (relative error of
0.43). The resulting maximum change in temperature
and inverse HRR for the various amounts of noise are
summarized in Table 2.

(b)

Fig. 4: Sensitivity of inverse HRR solution to various

levels of randomly perturbed input temperature data:
(a) Perturbed HGL temperatures (points) for various
levels of noise; (b) Inverse HRR curves for various levels
of noise.

5 Complex Heat Release Rate Curves

To evaluate the ability of the inverse method to determine a solution for complex HRR curves, three example
HRR curves from CFAST were used. The original HRR
was input into an initial CFAST run to generate synthetic temperature data, and the resulting HGL temperatures were used as inputs for the inverse method
to recover the original CFAST HRR curve. The sample
resolution of the input HGL temperature data was 10
seconds for all of the cases.
For simplicity, the gas phase combustion parameters
were the same as in the previous section (i.e., methane

Kristopher J. Overholt and Ofodike A. Ezekoye

with a heat of combustion of 50 MJ/kg); therefore, the

HRR curve was the only independent search parameter.
The enclosure dimensions were the same for all of the
cases (6.1 m x 4.9 m x 2.4 m enclosure).
Figures 5a, 6a, and 7a show the synthetic HGL temperature vs. time (points) compared the final HGL temperature vs. time (dashed line) from the inverse method
for a simple burner case, a mattress and boxspring case,
and a television set case, respectively. In Figs. 5b, 6b,
and 7b, the original HRR curve is shown as a solid line,
and the inverse HRR solution is shown as a dashed line.
For all of the cases, the inverse HRR curves are in good
agreement with the actual HRR curves. The relative
error of the inverse HRR solutions for all three cases is
0.04.
(a)

6 Experimentally Measured Compartment

Temperature Data
The inverse method was applied to various scenarios involving actual fire conditions by using experimentally
measured temperatures from enclosure fire experiments
as inputs to the inverse method. The experimental setup,
input values, and resulting inverse HRR solutions are
described in the following sections.

6.1 Steckler Compartment Data

The experimental steady-state compartment temperatures from 11 tests with various ventilation areas from
the Steckler compartment fire data [17] were used as
inputs to the inverse method.
For each Steckler compartment test, the ventilation area and ambient temperature were input into the
CFAST simulations, and the average HGL temperatures reported from the experiments were used as inputs to the inverse method. The inverse method was
then used to determine a steady-state HRR that would
result in the HGL temperatures for each test, and the
results of the inverse HRR method are shown in Table 3. The results are in good agreement with the experimental compartment data from Steckler and are
within 6% of the experimental HRR value. For the tests
considered in this study, Steckler reports a fire size of
62.9 kW for each test. Assuming a typical rotameter accuracy of 2% of full scale with a maximum flow rate of
3.2 103 m3 /s, which corresponds to the largest HRR
reported by Steckler (158 kW), this translates into a
HRR uncertainty of 6 kW in the case of methane,
or an uncertainty of about 10% for the 62.9 kW case.
Therefore, the results of the inverse HRR method can

(b)

Fig. 5: Results from the simple burner HRR case: (a)

HGL temperatures from CFAST (points) and inverse
method (dashed line); (b) Inverse HRR curve (dashed
line) compared to actual HRR curve (solid line).

be considered to be close to or within the uncertainty

bounds of the experimental data from Steckler.

6.2 UT Austin Experimental Data

The inverse method was then used with transient temperature data from compartment fire experiments that
were performed at The University of Texas at Austin
in a 6.1 m x 4.9 m x 2.4 m enclosure [18]. The walls
and ceiling of the enclosure were lined with one layer of
1.6 cm (0.63 in) gypsum wallboard. A schematic of the
experimental setup is shown in Fig. 8. The experiments
used two propane burners with total nominal HRRs

Characterizing heat release rates using an inverse fire modeling technique

Table 3: Error in inverse HRR solution vs. vent width from the Steckler experiments.
Vent Width (m)

Reported HRR (kW)

Inverse HRR (kW)

HRR Error (%)

0.24
0.36
0.49
0.49
0.62
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.86
0.99

62.9
62.9
62.9
62.9
62.9
62.9
62.9
62.9
62.9
62.9
62.9

63.5
62.5
63.1
66.4
61.4
61.4
60.4
61.1
65.8
61.2
59.5

0.9
0.7
0.3
5.6
2.4
2.4
3.9
2.9
4.7
2.7
5.4

(a)

(a)

(b)

(b)

Fig. 6: Results from the mattress HRR case: (a) HGL

temperatures from CFAST (points) and inverse method
(dashed line); (b) Inverse HRR curve (dashed line) compared to actual HRR curve (solid line).

Fig. 7: Results from the television HRR case: (a) HGL

temperatures from CFAST (points) and inverse method
(dashed line); (b) Inverse HRR curve (dashed line) compared to actual HRR curve (solid line).

Kristopher J. Overholt and Ofodike A. Ezekoye

Test section
Burners

4.88 m

Thermocouple tree locations

Door
6.1 m

Fig. 8: Experimental setup of the burn structure at The

University of Texas at Austin.

of 300 kW and 400 kW, and all doors and vents were
closed during the time period shown. The burn structure was instrumented with 32 thermocouples (eight
thermocouple trees with four thermocouples each at
various heights). The time at which the burners were
activated can be considered to be a step function change
in the HRR, and the inverse solution is then compared
to this step change.
Figure 9a shows the experimentally measured compartment temperature vs. time (points) compared to
the final HGL temperature vs. time (dashed line) from
the inverse method. The experimentally measured HGL
temperatures (points) shown in Fig. 9a represent a spatially averaged temperature over six thermocouple trees
using the highest thermocouples (2.08 m) in the local
fire area (the other two thermocouple trees were located behind a wall near the door). This spatially averaged temperature was used as an approximation to the
HGL temperature calculated by CFAST. For the inverse HRR method, the sample resolution for the temperature inputs was 10 seconds. The ambient temperature in the CFAST model was matched to that of the
experiments. Figure 9b shows the inverse HRR solution
(dashed line) compared to the nominal experimental
HRR (solid line) based on the fuel mass flow rate to
the gas burners.
Figures 10a, 11a, and 12a show the experimentally
measured HGL temperature vs. time (points) for three
additional fire tests compared to the final HGL temperature vs. time (dashed line) from the inverse method.
Figures 10b, 11b, and 12b show the inverse HRR solution (dashed line) compared to the nominal experimental HRR (solid line) based on the fuel mass flow rate to
the gas burners. The tests shown in Figs. 9, 10, and 11
had a nominal HRR of 300 kW, whereas the test shown

(a)

(b)

Fig. 9: Experimental HRR case with one 300 kW step:

(a) HGL temperatures from CFAST (points) and inverse method (dashed line); (b) HRR curve from inverse
search.

in Fig. 12 had a nominal HRR of 400 kW. Overall, the

uncertainty of Q is approximated as 5% by considering
the uncertainty in the rotameter settings. The relative
errors between the nominal HRR and inverse HRR solutions are between 7% and 19%.

7 Experimentally Measured Heat Release Rate

Data
To compare the inverse HRR solution to an experimentally measured HRR, the inverse method was used with
transient temperature data from compartment fire experiments that were conducted at Southwest Research

Characterizing heat release rates using an inverse fire modeling technique

(a)

(a)

(b)

(b)

Fig. 10: Experimental HRR case with one 300 kW step:

(a) HGL temperatures from CFAST (points) and inverse method (dashed line); (b) HRR curve from inverse
search.

Fig. 11: Experimental HRR case with one 300 kW step:

(a) HGL temperatures from CFAST (points) and inverse method (dashed line); (b) HRR curve from inverse
search.

Institute (SwRI)1 . The experiments were performed in

a 4.65 m x 3.43 m x 2.43 m enclosure with a 2 m x
0.74 m doorway opening. The walls and ceiling of the
enclosure were lined with two layers of 1.3 cm (0.5 in)
type X gypsum wallboard. Figure 13 shows a diagram of
the experimental setup. The compartment was instrumented with 35 thermocouples (5 ceiling thermocou-

ples, 16 doorway thermocouples, and 14 thermocouples

located in thermocouple trees).
A representative test from the full set of furniture
experiments was selected for this paper in which a mockup
furniture specimen was burned in the enclosure. In that
test, the furniture item was a three-seat sofa with cotton fabric and low density polyurethane foam padding
placed on a steel frame. The specimen was ignited on
the front using a CAL TB 133 gas burner (19 kW).
The combustion products from the enclosure were collected in a furniture calorimeter hood, and the HRR
was measured using oxygen consumption calorimetry.
For the inverse HRR method, the sample resolution
for the temperature inputs was 10 seconds. Addition-

1
This section summarizes partial results from SwRI
Project No. 15998. This project was supported by Award No.
2010DN-UX-K221, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.

10

Kristopher J. Overholt and Ofodike A. Ezekoye

Furniture
specimen

Door

3.43 m

Ceiling
thermocouple
locations

4.65 m

Fig. 13: Experimental setup of the furniture testing enclosure at SwRI.

(a)

(a)
(b)

Fig. 12: Experimental HRR case with one 400 kW step:

(a) HGL temperatures from CFAST (points) and inverse method (dashed line); (b) HRR curve from inverse
search.

ally, the ambient temperature in the CFAST model was

matched to that of the experiment.
Figure 14a shows the experimentally measured compartment temperatures vs. time (points) compared to
the final HGL temperature vs. time (dashed line) from
the inverse method. The input HGL temperatures (points)
shown in Fig. 14a represent a spatially averaged temperature over the five ceiling thermocouples. This spatially averaged temperature was used as an approximation to the HGL temperature calculated by CFAST.
Figure 9b shows the experimentally measured HRR (solid
line) compared to the inverse HRR solution (dashed
line), which has a relative error of 0.24.

(b)

Fig. 14: Experimentally measured HRR case: (a) HGL

temperatures from CFAST (points) and inverse method
(dashed line); (b) Inverse HRR curve (dashed line) compared to the actual HRR curve (solid line).

Characterizing heat release rates using an inverse fire modeling technique

8 Future Extensions of Inverse Fire Modeling

Techniques
As faster computing resources become more readily available, these methods will become more important in the
application of inverse fire modeling problems (IFMP).
Additionally, this method can be used to quickly determine a unique HRR curve that corresponds to an
observed fire timeline (e.g., time-temperature history,
heat flux measurements, fire service events, ventilation
events), which describes a complex IFMP scenario. Fire
Dynamics Simulator and CFAST models can be used
with various time dependent observations such as the
time of window breakages, time of ventilation events,
amount of smoke from ventilation openings, and time
to flashover to better determine an inverse solution by
using physical changes in the environment as bounding
conditions. Additional measurements from experiments
or fire incidents, such as heat fluxes and smoke layer
heights, can be used to improve the inverse solution by
imposing physical bounds on the inverse solution.
While the CFAST zone model is relatively inexpensive for this inverse HRR method, the results are based
upon assumptions and simplifications of the underlying physics. In principle, this inverse method could be
used with more complex fire models such as FDS to
determine the resulting enclosure conditions (e.g., temperatures, heat fluxes) and further improve the inverse
solution. Automated CFAST runs could be used to vary
the fire size and location in the enclosure, and the resulting scenario and HRR could then be simulated in
FDS to verify the physics with more fidelity. Previous
related work has been performed by Hostikka et al. [19]
regarding the probabilistic simulation of CFAST using
the Monte-Carlo method. That study utilized rank order correlations to identify model parameters that significantly affect the results. Because CFAST is computationally inexpensive compared to FDS, the predictor
step of the inverse solution could quickly be computed
using CFAST, and the results from CFAST could be
used to steer subsequent FDS simulations in the corrector step.
9 Conclusion
A method for recovering transient HRR based upon
measured transient compartment fire temperatures was
presented. The inverse method required about 5 to 10
seconds of total run time on an Apple Macbook Pro
computer with a 2.2 GHz processor to calculate a transient inverse HRR solution for each case; each case required between 10 and 30 CFAST runs for each case.
For all of the cases described in this paper, the inverse

11

HRR solution had a relative error between 0.04 and 0.24

compared to the actual HRR. The implementation of
the low-order MQH correlation for the predictor step
allows for a quick calculation of the update (predictor) step because it has the advantage of being directly
invertible for the HRR. Use of the predictor step reduced the total number of computational (CFAST) iterations required to generate an inverse HRR solution
that meets the specified convergence criterion.
For the multiple step function increment cases, the
inverse solution adequately detected changes in the HRR
steps. For the experimental enclosure temperature case,
the inverse method effectively captured the activation
of the gas burners. However, because the HRR was
not measured directly, it is difficult to quantify the
amount of error in the inverse solution. Qualitatively,
this method captured a change in the HRR and exhibits potential for obtaining an inverse solution from
these types of scenarios in which the measured HRR is
unknown and only temperature data are available. For
the complex HRR cases and the experimentally measured HRR case, the inverse method performed well
and the inverse HRR solution was in good agreement
with the actual HRR, which demonstrates the versatility and accuracy of the inverse HRR method.
One limitation of this methodology is that the material properties of the boundary conditions must be
prespecified, and the inverse HRR solution is sensitive
to the selection of boundary conditions, as shown in Fig.
3. However, in the United States, most of the compartment configurations in which this method can potentially be applied (e.g., residential and commercial occupancies, fire experiments, fire investigations) are limited
to certain types of boundary conditions such as gypsum
wallboard or similar types of insulating building materials. Thus, it is believed that a computationally inexpensive methodology for the transient HRR solution for
such cases is a valid contribution of this study.
Acknowledgements This work was funded by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Dept. of Commerce
Grant No. 60NANB7D6122.

References
1. W. Jahn, G. Rein, J. Torero, Fire Safety Journal 46(3),
81 (2011)
2. A. Cowlard, W. Jahn, C. Abecassis-Empis, G. Rein,
J. Torero, Fire Technology 46, 719 (2010)
3. W. Davis, G. Forney, National Institute of Standards and
Technology Special Publication 965, Gaithersburg, MD
pp. 494505 (2001)
4. S. Koo, J. Fraser-Mitchell, S. Welch, Fire Safety Journal
45(3) (2010)

12
5. R. Richards, B. Munk, O. Plumb, Fire Safety Journal
28(4), 323 (1997)
6. A. Neviackas, Inverse fire modeling to estimate the heat
release rate of compartment fires. Masters thesis, University of Maryland, College Park (2007)
7. A. Neviackas, A. Trouv
e, in SFPE Professional Development Conference and Exposition, Las Vegas, NV. (2007)
8. M. Leblanc, A. Trouv
e, in 6th U.S. Combustion Meeting,
Ann Arbor, MI. (2009)
9. W. Lee, S. Lee, Journal of the Chinese Society of Mechanical Engineers 26(1-2), 201 (2005)
10. R. Alpert, Fire Technology 8(3), 181 (1972)
11. R. Peacock, W. Jones, P. Reneke, G. Forney, National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication
1041, Gaithersburg, MD (2008)

12. M. Ozisik,
H. Orlande, Inverse heat transfer: fundamentals and applications (Hemisphere Pub, 2000)
13. B. McCaffrey, J. Quintiere, M. Harkleroad, Fire Technology 17(2), 98 (1981)
14. J. Quintiere, NBSIR 83-2712, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC (1983)
15. R. Peacock, P. Reneke, W. D Davis, W. Jones, Fire Safety
Journal 33(3), 167 (1999)
16. K. McGrattan, R. McDermott, S. Hostikka, J. Floyd,
National Institute of Standards and Technology Special
Publication 1019-5, Gaithersburg, MD (2010)
17. K. Steckler, J. Quintiere, W. Rinkinen, in Symposium
(International) on Combustion, vol. 19 (1) (Elsevier,
1982), vol. 19 (1), pp. 913920
18. C. Weinschenk, C. Beal, O. Ezekoye, Journal of Fire Protection Engineering 21(2), 81 (2011)
19. S. Hostikka, T. Korhonen, O. Keski-Rahkonen, in Fire
Safety ScienceProceedings of the Eighth International
Symposium, September (2005), pp. 1823

Kristopher J. Overholt and Ofodike A. Ezekoye