Origin Matrix Analysis Methodology

Published in Fire and Arson Investigator, Journal of the International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI),
Volume 64, Issue 1, July 2013.

1

ORIGIN MATRIX ANALYSIS: A SYSTEMATIC METHODOLOGY FOR THE
ASSESSMENT AND INTERPRETATION OF COMPARTMENT FIRE DAMAGE.

By: Andrew Cox, PE andrew.cox@atf.gov
Special Agent/Certified Fire Investigator (CFI)
Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
United States Department of Justice

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

Technical and Editorial Contributions From:

Steven Avato, Resident Agent in Charge ATF.
Steven Carman Carman and Associates Fire Investigations.
John Comery, Special Agent/CFI ATF.
William Clark, Investigator New Hampshire State Fire Marshals Office (NHFMO).
Justin Geiman, Fire Research Engineer ATF.
Brian Grove, Fire Research Engineer ATF
William Joa, Special Agent/CFI/Certified Explosives Specialist (CES) ATF.
Michael Marquardt, Special Agent/CFI ATF.
Lee McCarthy, Fire Research Engineer ATF.
John Pijaca, Special Agent/CFI ATF.
Keith Rodenhiser, Investigator NHFMO.
David Wheeler, Fire Analyst NEFCO Fire Investigations.
Nathan Wittasek, Senior Managing Engineer Exponent.

Thanks also to countless other investigators, engineers, and scientists who shared their ideas,
perspective, and experiences during development of the concepts presented in this paper.

INTRODUCTION
Fire investigators routinely assess and interpret fire scene patterns and damages in an effort to
develop hypotheses, and eventually draw conclusions about where a fire may have started and
how that fire spread throughout a structure. In the case of pre-flashover fires, there is rarely
disparity among fire investigators about the general area in which a fire originated. However,
despite significant advances in the science of fire investigation, it is still a relatively common
occurrence that two qualified fire investigators look at the same post-flashover fire scene
evidence and reach different conclusions regarding area of origin, and then ultimately cause.
The fact that different investigators can review the same fire scene damages, yet reach different
interpretations about how those damages were generated, has been, and continues to be the
premier problem in the evolution of fire investigation as a more reproducible scientific process.
It is recognized that no system will ever completely eliminate all disputes among investigators,
as an essential feature of origin and cause opinions is that they rely upon individual interpretation

2

of data. Nevertheless, investigations that employ approaches based upon a solid scientific
foundation are more likely to yield substantially similar conclusions, rather than vastly differing
opinions.

A major road block in quality, scientific-based fire investigations may be a generalized lack of
understanding of the fundamental principles governing fire damage development among many
practicing fire investigators. Investigators must have a clear understanding not just of the fire-
related physics and material properties that are responsible for creating fire damages, but they
must also be able to justifiably interpret those damages in a meaningful and technically accurate
way. A number of resources, including texts like NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion
Investigations
i
, organizations like the International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI),
and educational institutions like the National Fire Academy (NFA), attempt to address the issue
of fire scene damage assessment and interpretation with some effectiveness, but the issue is by
no means resolved. The purpose of this paper is to outline a practical and logical thought process
to assist fire investigators in more accurately and consistently identifying correct areas of origin.
Before outlining this framework, a brief review of some fundamental fire science and damage
dynamics principles is required.

FIRE SCIENCE PRINCIPLES States of Matter and the Fire Tetrahedron

Two key fire science principles are of paramount importance in understanding post-flashover
fires. The first principle has to do with states of matter and how they relate to fire. The three
basic classifications of matter are solid, liquid, and gas. It is of critical importance that the
investigator understands that before flaming combustion can exist, solids and liquids must be
transformed into a gas through pyrolysis or a phase change. In other words, solids and liquids do
not themselves directly burn (except in special circumstances like smoldering combustion of
solids) and must be first transformed into a gaseous state. When sufficient heat is applied to a
solid or liquid fuel, it will change into a gaseous form, and only then will it be a potential fuel for
flaming combustion. This concept becomes particularly important in post-flashover fires
because entire compartments can become filled with pyrolized gases and the specific location of
solid and liquid fuels items may become irrelevant in subsequently developing patterns. More
detailed discussion of this topic will follow.

The second important principle is the fire tetrahedron. Fire investigators are commonly taught
that the presence of heat, fuel, an oxidizer, and an uninhibited chemical chain reaction are
required for a fire to exist. A more simplified model, the fire triangle, is also taught, and it
presumes that the uninhibited chemical chain reaction will exist if heat, fuel, and oxygen are
present in sufficient quantity and ratios. The simplified fire triangle model will be referred to for
much of this paper. In the post-flashover environment, the heat component of the fire triangle
comes from the energy generated by the uninhibited chemical chain reaction of the fire itself. As
discussed above, the fuel for the fire is in a gaseous form and is typically generated from
pyrolysis/vaporization of solid and liquid items. Finally, the oxygen component of the fire
triangle typically comes from the oxygen that is available in ambient air. Fire will only exist
where these three components (heat, fuel, oxygen) come together in appropriate ratios. In the
post-flashover environment, the critical components of the fire triangle are at times only co-

3

located in areas remote from the origin of the fire because oxygen is only available in areas
proximate to ventilation openings.

To examine these concepts in further detail, consider a single point of origin fire developing in a
one room compartment with an offset doorway opening. The sole oxidizer for the fire in this
case is oxygen in ambient air. Refer to Figure 1 for a visual representation of this hypothetical
compartment, and note that for instructional purposes, the space has been arbitrarily divided into
four separate quadrants for analysis.

In the early pre-flashover development of the fire, fire conditions (the adequate combination of
heat, fuel and oxygen) are primarily limited to the quadrant of origin (Quadrant 1). The heat of
the fire causes proximate solid and liquid items to vaporize into a gas. That heated gaseous fuel
immediately mixes and reacts with oxygen in the air and burning occurs in the immediate area of
the original solid and liquid items. Heat, gaseous fuel, and oxygen, are present in the quadrant of
origin during the early stages of the fire. The remaining regions of the compartment, Quadrants
2, 3 and 4, lack one or more components of the fire triangle. While there may be ample oxygen
in these regions, there is insufficient heat or gaseous fuel to allow flames to exist in Quadrants 2,
3, and 4. As previously discussed, it is important to distinguish between fuels in the gaseous
form and fuels in the solid and liquid forms. There may be large quantities of solid and liquid
fuels in quadrants remote from the origin, but it is fuel in the gaseous form that is needed for
flaming fire to exist. Refer to Figure 2 for a visual representation of these concepts. Note that in
Figure 2 a red triangle is present in Quadrant 1 denoting that all three components of the fire
triangle consistent with flaming fire conditions are present in this area. Blue triangles are present
in Quadrants 2, 3 and 4 denoting that one or more components of the fire triangle are missing. In
this particular case, oxygen is the only component consistently present in Quadrants 2, 3 and 4
and the blue triangle represents that no flaming fire conditions are present in these areas.

4

Assuming a sufficient and continued fire growth rate, flaming fire conditions will remain
primarily limited to Quadrant 1 prior to the onset of the transitional period known as flashover.
As the fire develops and approaches flashover, there may be intermittent fire extending from
Quadrant 1 into Quadrants 2, 3, and/or 4. The gaseous fuels generated within Quadrant 1 may
migrate in sufficient quantity to other quadrants and possess enough heat energy to allow
reaction with available oxygen. As a result, all conditions of the fire triangle may be
intermittently met in other quadrants, but prior to flashover, continuous fire conditions will
primarily exist only in the general area of origin, or Quadrant 1 in this case.

During the transitional stage of flashover, heat energy from the fire accumulates within and is
distributed throughout the compartment. This heat causes solid and liquid fuels throughout the
entire compartment to generate the requisite gaseous fuel. Due to the open doorway, sufficient
oxygen may still exist throughout the compartment, and all three conditions of the fire triangle
may be briefly met for large portions of the compartment. The result is the entire room appears
to become involved in fire, and the transition of flashover is often described as such by
observers. Refer to Figure 3 for a graphical representation of these concepts. Note that flashover
is not defined as a single point in time, but rather as a rapid transition period, which in very
general terms, leads from a fire in a room to a room on fire.
ii
It should also be noted that
flashover may not necessarily result in uniform flaming conditions throughout the entire
compartment. It may just appear that way from the exterior. Oxygen depletion in the
compartment during pre-flashover and early in the flashover transition may already inhibit
flaming combustion in portions of the compartment.

5

In the post-flashover stage of a compartment fire, conditions change dramatically from what
occurs prior to flashover. In fact, up to this point, many investigators are likely to be familiar
and comfortable with the concepts that have been discussed. However, post-flashover fire
conditions are in many ways contrary to what has been historically taught throughout the fire
investigation community. Even published references such as NFPA 921, Guide for Fire and
Explosion Investigation and Kirks Fire Investigation provide information that may be
misleading when trying to understand important concepts related to post-flashover fire
conditions.
i,iii
Terms like full room involvement and graphical representations such as Figure
5.10.2.7 in NFPA 921 suggest that fire conditions exist uniformly throughout a compartment
during post-flashover conditions. A careful reading of the entire text of such references often
clarifies the misconceptions associated with certain terms and diagrams; nevertheless, these
misconceptions persist. In most cases, the post-flashover compartment environment may be
quite different from popular perception, and these differences are critical to the proper
investigation of such fires.

Flashover conditions cause the available oxygen within a typical compartment to be consumed in
a relatively short period of time. This lack of oxygen, commonly referred to as a ventilation
limited condition, controls what will ultimately take place in the post-flashover environment. In
the post-flashover fire compartment, tremendous amounts of heat energy have been generated,
much of which remains contained within the confines of the room. This heat energy is
effectively driving pyrolysis/vaporization of every exposed solid and liquid fuel within the space,
such that fuel gases fill the entire compartment, regardless of the location of those solid and
liquid items. These heated fuel gases are at or above their ignition temperature, but they can
only burn when they mix with the final component of the fire triangle, oxygen. Oxygen in the
fresh ambient air is supplied to the compartment only through ventilation openings such as doors
and windows, and even HVAC vents. Incoming fresh air quickly mixes with heated gaseous
fuel, completing the fire triangle. Therefore, fire will only exist in the areas proximate to
ventilation openings where this fresh air enters the compartment. This conceptual behavior has
been noted in numerous experiments involving underventilated compartments.
iv,v,vi
Refer to
Figure 4 for a visual representation of these concepts. Despite the fact that the fire originated in
Quadrant 1, in the post-flashover fire environment, actual flaming fire conditions may
consistently exist only proximate to airflow from the vent in Quadrant 3. Irrespective of where
the fire started or where solid and liquid fuel items are located, in the post-flashover
environment, flaming fire conditions will consistently exist only in areas proximate to oxygen
supplying vents as depicted in Figure 4. This concept is the single most important factor in
correctly determining an area of origin in post-flashover fires, and it will be discussed further
below. In fact, the concept is so important, it is worth repeating. Irrespective of where a fire
started or where solid and liquid fuel items are located, in the post-flashover environment,
flaming fire conditions will consistently exist only in areas proximate to oxygen supplying vents.

6

Before continuing, a couple of caveats should be noted. First, if a compartment is small, and the
ventilation opening is large, the post-flashover fire environment is likely to be nearly uniform
throughout the space. An example of this behavior is an open wall flashover cell demonstration
where an entire wall of a compartment is left open for instructional viewing. In such a fire, the
large ventilation opening supplies adequate fresh air (oxygen) to the entire space such that
conditions of the fire triangle are met throughout the compartment, and post-flashover exposures
are then likely to be somewhat uniform throughout the space. The fire dynamics of open wall
flashover cell demonstrations as described above may be a likely source of misleading
information. Investigators may observe such a demonstration, and then incorrectly presume that
the uniform post-flashover fire conditions they saw in the demonstration apply to other
compartments with smaller, more common openings, such as doors and windows.

Second, post-flashover fires generate high velocity flows and turbulence that can allow for fire
conditions and severe exposures to exist some distance from a vent. In the case of a small or
modestly sized residential room such as a bedroom, it is possible that the influx of fresh air at a
vent, such as the doorway in our example, has enough velocity, and associated momentum, to
enable fire conditions to extend beyond Quadrant 3 and into other quadrants. Therefore, when it
is said that burning in the post-flashover environment will occur proximate to ventilation
openings, it must be understood that proximate is a relative term that must be considered in more
detail by the investigator.

Third, while post-flashover fire conditions may be primarily limited to areas near vents, the
remaining space will continue experiencing a significant heat exposure. Heat contained within
the compartment will continue to pyrolize solids and vaporize liquids throughout the space and
generate damage. In addition, air leakage due to typical construction techniques and turbulent
flows may allow pockets of burning in areas throughout a compartment. While significant, the
magnitude of these exposures is simply not as great as in areas of a vent where heat, fuel and
oxygen consistently and efficiently combine to generate intense flaming combustion.

Finally, the visual representations depicted in Figures 1-4 are a simplification of very complex
behavior, and are intended only as conceptual diagrams. Real fires may result in differences, but
an investigator who understands the simplified concepts above will be able to apply them to
differing and more complex circumstances and situations.

7

DAMAGE DYNAMICS PRINCIPLES

With a better understanding of post-flashover compartment fire conditions, attention must now
be focused on how those fire conditions generate the damages investigators interpret. Materials
exposed to fire conditions experience a fire effect, considered to be the observable or measurable
changes in or on a material as a result of exposure to fire.
i
Examples of fire effects include
charring of wood, calcination of drywall, deformation of plastics or metals, and deposition of
soot. These generic fire effects result in incident and circumstance specific fire damage patterns
which frequently come in the form of observable shapes. For example, observable fire patterns
may be labeled as horizontal, vertical or angled lines of demarcation, V or U shaped charring
and/or deposition, or a circular hole in a floor. For the purposes of this paper, the term damage
includes both generic fire effects and incident specific fire patterns. It is only through
interpretation of damage (fire effects and fire patterns), in conjunction with other investigative
information, that investigators may develop hypotheses regarding a fires origin and cause.

The three key factors influencing the nature and extent of fire damages include, (1) exposure
duration, (2) intensity of the impinging heat flux, and (3) the properties of the exposed material.
While these concepts are not new and have been discussed in other references
vii
, they are rarely
clearly identified or explained in detail.

1. EXPOSURE DURATION: The longer a material is exposed to fire, the greater the
extent of damages to that material. Consider an oak block of wood placed in a
woodstove fire for five minutes, and another oak block of similar size and properties
placed in the same woodstove fire for ten minutes. The block exposed for ten minutes
will comparatively have more significant observable damages because it was exposed to
the fire conditions for a longer period of time.

2. EXPOSURE INTENSITY: All other factors equal, a material exposed to fire conditions
of greater heat intensity will exhibit greater damages. Consider a block of oak placed in a
high-intensity furnace for five minutes as compared to a similar block of oak exposed to
the woodstove fire for five minutes. Despite the same exposure duration, the block
placed in the furnace will exhibit a greater extent of damages because the exposure
intensity is more severe in the furnace.

3. MATERIAL PROPERTIES: Differing materials will respond differently to the same fire
exposure. Consider a similarly sized block of lightweight pine wood placed in a
woodstove fire for five minutes compared to the oak block of the original example above.
Despite the same exposure duration and intensity, the lightweight pine block will be more
damaged due to its differing material properties. Material form should also be considered
as a material property. For example, oak wood shavings are in a form more susceptible
to damage than solid oak blocks.

8

These simple examples of exposure duration, exposure intensity, and material properties are
often taught to fire investigators, and even the new investigator can grasp these concepts in the
context of the above outlined circumstances. However, problems arise when attempting to
understand and interpret such damages in the more complex scenario of an uncontrolled
compartment fire. Each of the three factors cannot be so easily isolated from one another in the
uncontrolled fire environment. Each factor affects the resulting overall observable damages
simultaneously and at different rates of magnitude over the entire life of a given fire scenario.
The complexity of damage dynamics in real world fires is a problem that even the most educated
and experienced investigator will find challenging. A framework for applying the fundamentals
of fire science and damage dynamics is needed to competently conduct any fire investigation.
That framework is a two step process that begins with an assessment of observable fire effects
and fire patterns. The second step in the process is interpreting those observed damages in a
meaningful context to develop hypotheses, and ultimately conclusions, about the origin of a fire.

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

Damage assessment is the process by which the fires impact on objects and building materials
are characterized. The investigator must identify distinguishable areas of fire effects and fire
patterns at a fire scene. A four step process of damage assessment is recommended:

1. DOCUMENT FIRE EFFECTS Fire investigators must first observe and identify fire
effects, such as charring of wood, calcination of drywall, deformation of plastics or
metals, deposition of smoke, etc.

2. QUANTIFY FIRE EFFECTS If possible, fire effects may be quantified by
measurement; however, the ability to make such quantitative measurements is often
limited by the availability and/or accuracy of suitable measurement techniques. Fire
effects are more commonly quantified by way of qualitative comparison. For example,
an investigator might document that one side of a sofa is more substantially consumed
than the other, simply by way of comparative observation.

3. DOCUMENT FIRE PATTERNS Fire investigators must observe and identify fire
patterns. A fire effect or a collection of fire effects may come in the form of identifiable
shapes. Horizontal, vertical and angular lines of demarcation and geometrically shaped
patterns of interest are commonplace at fire scenes.

4. LABEL FIRE PATTERNS For discussion and reference purposes, fire patterns may be
labeled to correspond to common geometrical shapes such as lines, triangles, circles,
cones. Identification of V and U shapes are also frequently employed. Such descriptors
are limitless, and are simply a label to facilitate in the communication of observations.

Damage assessment is simply a process of data collection, description, and organization.
Investigators must resist the temptation to interpret the meaning of individual fire effects and fire
patterns in isolation. It is understood that fire effects and fire patterns may provide useful insight
about the extent and direction of fire exposure; however, data collection must come before

9

credible analysis. Fire effects and fire patterns are often believed to have a very specific
analyzed meaning, for example, a V-shaped pattern is often considered to have been generated
by a fire plume and indicative of fire origin. However, this may or may not be true. Individual
fire effects and fire patterns are of little value until they are considered in the context of other fire
effects and fire patterns, compartment geometry, ventilation conditions, construction features,
etc.

When possible, it is important that investigators discuss their observations of fire effects and fire
patterns, in hopes of reaching mutual agreement in assessment, prior to interpretation of those
damages. If investigators cannot agree on the nature and characteristics of observed damages,
then their interpretation of such damages is very likely to result in different conclusions.

DAMAGE ANALYSIS

Once fire effects and fire damages have been assessed and investigators agree on the observed
distinguishable areas of damage, it is time to interpret those damages. The magnitude of fire
effects may be utilized to characterize an area or areas that have experienced the most significant
cumulative exposure. Fire patterns may provide insight into direction of exposure. In
combination, fire effects and fire patterns are data which can be used to generate reasonable
hypothetical areas of potential origin. However, additional analysis is required.

In the interpretation of damages, it is helpful to utilize a comparative origin matrix analysis based
on the fundamentals of fire science and damage dynamics already discussed. Consider the single
compartment fire with a fire originating in Quadrant 1 as discussed previously. For simplicity,
assume the solid items/materials located throughout the space are relatively uniform. In the case
of a fire extinguished prior to flashover, the fire conditions and associated damages are generally
limited to the area of origin. This is depicted in Figure 5 by light blue shading in Quadrant 1.
Fire effects are anticipated to be most severe in Quadrant 1 where the fire originated. Also, fire
patterns may provide directional clues of a source heat exposure emanating from Quadrant 1. In
this case, even the novice investigator, with little training and experience, is likely to correctly
identify Quadrant 1 as the general area where the fire started.

10

If the same fire were allowed to progress to flashover, it may result in relatively uniform
damages throughout the compartment in addition to those damages generated in Quadrant 1
during pre-flashover development of the fire. Flashover is a relatively short transition, but the
exposure intensity is great such that readily observable fire effects are likely generated on items
and surfaces throughout the space. Nevertheless, the cumulative fire effects imparted to the area
of origin (Quadrant 1) are still likely to be visibly more severe than in other quadrants. Fire
patterns are also still likely to provide directional clues of the original source exposure emanating
from Quadrant 1. Reference Figure 6 for a visual representation of this condition, and note that
darker shading corresponds to damage of greater significance. In this case, correct origin
determination becomes more complicated, but it is very likely that a distinguishable area of
heavier damage will exist in Quadrant 1. This distinguishable area of comparatively severe fire
damage, if present, is likely to help investigators to correctly identify the general area where the
fire started.

If the same fire were allowed to progress post-flashover for a short duration, ventilation effects
will likely begin to drive damage development. In the post-flashover fire, heat, fuel and oxygen
at levels sufficient for flaming combustion will only be consistently present in the area proximate
to the doorway vent. Therefore, intense fire conditions will only be present in Quadrant 3 in the
area of the vent because sufficient oxygen is unavailable in the remaining quadrants. Despite the
fact that intense fire conditions are present only in the area of the vent, the tremendous amounts
of heat contained within the compartment would continue to produce damage, although to a
lesser extent, in the rest of the compartment. Figure 7 conceptually represents this behavior. In
this instance, investigators may discover two distinguishable areas of fire effects, the first in
Quadrant 1 where the fire originated, and the second in Quadrant 3 where the doorway vent
allows fresh air to enter the compartment. In addition, fire patterns may provide directional clues
of source heat exposures emanating from Quadrant 1 and Quadrant 3. Up until this point in time,
the cumulative damages due to heat exposure duration and intensity have been more heavily
concentrated in Quadrants 1 and 3. However, it must be noted that the damages observed in the
originating quadrant may be significantly more subtle than those observed in the area of the vent.
In fact, due to the intensity of post-flashover conditions, notable damages near the area of origin
in Quadrant 1 may be perceived to be secondary to the damages observed in the area of the vent
and may easily be overlooked by investigators. While the total duration of exposure may be
longest in Quadrant 1, the tremendous intensities of post-flashover fire conditions will quickly

11

start to generate damages that mask and overshadow all other cumulative damages within the
compartment. Quadrants 2 and 4 are likely to show signs of significant damage, but to a
comparatively lesser extent.

Finally, if the same fire were allowed to progress post-flashover for an extended duration,
ventilation effects are likely to completely dominate the damages generated and then observed.
Fire conditions would be limited primarily to Quadrant 3 where the doorway vent provides fresh
air, and the intensity of those fire conditions would be great. When the intense burning of post-
flashover conditions in Quadrant 3 is allowed to persist for an extended duration, the damages
generated there are likely to overshadow all other damages generated within the compartment
throughout the life of the fire. Almost without exception, investigators will observe a readily
identifiable area of comparatively significant damage associated with the vent, and the remainder
of the compartment will appear somewhat uniformly damaged to a lesser extent. The continued
heat exposure in the remaining Quadrants may mask originating fire damage indicators that
would be helpful to an investigator in determining the true area of origin. Only the very
perceptive investigator, with favorable material related damage factors, is likely to identify
secondary fire effects and/or patterns of value in the originating quadrant. In longer duration
post-flashover fires, the areas of the most severe fire effects and the most prominent fire patterns
are anticipated proximate to vents, and such areas of heavy damage are not necessarily
associated with the area of origin. In that case, it may be nearly impossible to correctly narrow
the area of origin within the compartment based solely on damage without additional data such
as facts, information, and evidence generated from circumstances, eyewitness accounts, timeline
information, pre-fire details regarding the contents of the room, etc. Reference Figure 8.

12

ORIGIN MATRIX ANALYSIS

When examining a fire incident where the origin is unknown, it may be helpful for the
investigator to complete a cognitive process of analysis for hypothetical fires originating in each
of the identified quadrants until a matrix of scenarios is complete. Table 1 illustrates the origin
matrix analysis of possible outcomes to be considered. The investigator can then compare actual
scene observations (assessed damages) to the matrix of possible outcomes to help identify a
potential area or areas of origin (damage interpretation).

It is not uncommon for actual scene observations to resemble multiple matrix elements. In this
case, the investigator may be required to consider a range of origin and fire stage possibilities. In
fact, the investigator may not be able to narrow the area of origin to one, two, or even three
quadrants and may be resigned to interpret the whole room as a potential area of origin. The
investigator must then compare origin hypotheses to all available investigative information to
better characterize the validity of each potential area of origin. Additional data may allow the
elimination of certain quadrants as potential areas of origin, and this process of elimination is
often a very effective tool. Rather than focusing on which matrix scenarios fit, the investigator
may employ a process by which matrix scenarios are determined to be invalid and are
eliminated. The example combinations are endless, but real-world fire scene observations,
combined with additional data such as witness information, circumstances, and hypothetical
matrix scenarios are likely to lead an investigator to converge on a small number, or maybe even
a single, hypothetical matrix analysis outcome.

13

COMPLICATIONS

Some readily identifiable complications are foreseeable and must be considered in any origin
analysis of a post-flashover fire incident and they are as follows:

a. The Material Property Factor of Damage Dynamics.
b. Effects of Vent Flow Velocity and Momentum.
c. Single vs. Multiple Points of Origin.
d. Partial Extinguishment.
e. Dynamic Ventilation Conditions.

Due to these complications, application of the concepts presented thus far may require some
additional thought and consideration.

Material Property Considerations

The discussion and examples up to this point have largely avoided the concept that material
factors must be assessed and considered in damage interpretation. Unfortunately, real world

14

living spaces often contain a wide variety of materials with dramatically different susceptibilities
to fire/heat exposures. In addition, some areas of a living space, such as a rooms natural
walking path of travel, may be void of furnishings or materials that inhibit an investigator from
comparing exposure damages to another area. As a result, material considerations may
complicate things considerably. For example, suppose that investigators observe significant fire
effects to a stack of lightweight wicker chairs in one area, and comparatively minor fire effects to
a solid oak desk in another area. When interpreting the exposure conditions that may have
caused the damages in each area, the investigator must somehow account for the fact that the
wicker chairs are more susceptible to damage. Accounting for such differences is likely to be
difficult, and if done improperly, can lead to erroneous conclusions.

In order to minimize discrepancies due to material considerations, it is recommended that
investigators do their best to compare damages to like materials in different areas. For example,
a furniture set where a sofa and loveseat are made of the same materials may allow for credible
damage comparisons of the different areas where they are located. Wall, floor and ceiling
coverings are in many cases uniform throughout a space, and may also allow for credible damage
comparisons. As the saying goes, investigators want to avoid comparing apples to oranges.
The origin matrix analysis relies largely on comparing differential damages from one area to
another, and investigators must make efforts to utilize like materials in their comparisons so that
meaningful hypotheses may be developed and credible conclusions reached.

Effects of Vent Flow Velocity and Momentum

Although the previously presented quadrant theme is conceptually useful, consideration must be
given to the fact that fresh air inflows at vents during post-flashover conditions may have
significant velocities, and therefore momentum, associated with them. Those significant
velocities can extend fire conditions further into the compartment, and therefore produce
damages, some distance beyond what one might consider as proximate to the vent.
Experimental results for residential-sized bedroom compartments have demonstrated that
damages generated during post-flashover conditions can extend beyond Quadrant 3 and into
Quadrant 2.
viii,ix

It can be anticipated that the magnitude of fresh air inflows at vents during post-flashover
conditions are likely to be greatest at the horizontal center of the vent, where the effects of
friction losses due to the vent sides are at their minimum. In addition, one might assume the
direction of such flow is likely to be closely perpendicular to the plane of the vent. Reference
Figure 9. In the case of the compartment with an open doorway, those flows are most heavily
directed towards the wall opposite the door, or the C-Side wall in Quadrant 2.

15

Recall that during post-flashover conditions two components of the fire triangle are generally
available throughout the entire space: heat and fuel gases. The only remaining component of the
fire triangle needed is oxygen (in fresh air). As the fresh air inflow from the vent enters the
compartment, that fresh air will begin to mix with the heat and fuel gases already present. When
mixed in sufficient quantities, flaming fire conditions will occur. Momentum of the fresh air
flow continues to transport these flaming conditions towards the wall in Quadrant 2, while at the
same time the additional heat produced from the flames will provide buoyancy to those flows.
Any solid object that obstructs those flows will be the recipient of very intense heat fluxes.
Rarely are solid objects placed directly in front of doorway vents, and as a result, it is an item or
items located within the flow further inside the compartment that becomes the first damage
indicator. In a smaller compartment, such as a typical residential sized bedroom, it is the wall
opposite the door in Quadrant 2, or any furnishing placed along that wall, that receives the brunt
of post-flashover fire damages.

The effects of vent flow velocity and momentum may require an alternative to the 4-quadrant
themed approach. In the case of smaller compartments more typical of residential bedrooms,
analytical divisions dissecting the compartment in half as in Figure 10 may be a better approach.
An analytical division of the compartment into three areas of consideration as in Figure 11 may
also be useful. The key is to recognize that post-flashover fire conditions may result in heavy
damages observed in both Quadrants 2 and 3, and therefore, it may be a more useful analytical
paradigm to combine these quadrants into a single arbitrary section, such as in Figures 10 or 11.
Tables 2 and 3 complete the matrix analysis for these alternative analytical divisions.

16

Single v. Multiple Areas of Origin

The analyses presented so far have relied upon the assumption of a fire starting in a single area of
origin. Multiple areas of origin can also be considered, and their main point of difference
involves the accumulation of pre-flashover fire damages in multiple quadrants as opposed to just
one. Once the transition of flashover occurs, fire conditions will still migrate in the same fashion
towards ventilation openings providing fresh air, regardless of how many fires are present
initially and regardless of where those fires were originally located.

17

Partial Extinguishment

In the case of larger fires, partial extinguishment is of significant concern. Suppression of a fire
in one area may substantively halt continued accumulation of damage in that area. If other areas
remain unsuppressed, fire conditions may cause continued accumulation of damages in those
areas, which are completely independent of origin and completely independent of post-flashover
ventilation generated damages. Such damages are simply a result of the continued duration of
fire/heat exposure due to a lack of or ineffective suppression activity.

Even after the fire service considers an incident to be under control, there are frequently areas
within the debris that continue to smolder and/or flame. It is not uncommon for large fire scenes
to experience smoldering conditions and small spot fires for days, which may at times even result
in larger rekindles. It must be remembered that such smoldering conditions and rekindles
continue to impart damages to materials, and that damage is of no relevance to origin or
ventilation conditions.

Investigators must obtain information about suppression activity and possible continued
exposures due to smoldering conditions and/or rekindles. Such circumstances can then be

18

included in the matrix analysis by adding another time element beyond long duration post-
flashover, such as post-extinguishment, to the matrix.

Dynamic Ventilation Conditions

In many real world fire scenarios, ventilation conditions are not static throughout the life of the
incident. Fire conditions may cause previously closed vent openings to fail. The opposite may
also be true, and previously open vents may close, such as in the case where air flows cause a
door to shut. It is not uncommon for early observers of a fire to open doors or break windows in
an effort to gain entry or thinking they are providing a potential way of escape for occupants.
Ventilation tactics are almost always employed by the fire service. Dynamic ventilation
conditions may be considered in the matrix analysis by simply accounting for additional
accumulated damages in areas around a vent after it has been deemed to become open. It may
be helpful to add another time element in the matrix to more clearly account for accumulation of
damages before, and then after, a vent opens.

Some ventilation openings may not supply any fresh air to a compartment. It is not uncommon
for elevated openings, such as high windows and ceiling vents, to act as an exhaust without
allowing for any inflow of fresh air. External conditions such as wind may also affect whether or
not a ventilation opening provides fresh air, acts as an exhaust, or both. If it is suspected a vent
might not supply fresh air to the fire compartment, the matrix analysis can be applied both ways
to cognitively consider the different damages anticipated for such a variation.

CONCLUSIONS

The origin matrix analysis offers a systematic means to effectively apply fire dynamics
principles to the analysis and interpretation of fire scene damages. Since the general concepts
remain the same, the origin matrix analysis may also be applied to more complex scenarios and
geometries, including fires involving multiple compartments and/or levels.

Several concepts derived from the origin matrix analysis and are worth reiterating:

1. Irrespective of where a fire starts, post-flashover fire conditions will produce ventilation
induced exposures and corresponding damages in areas associated with fresh air supply
vents such as doors and windows.

2. The damages generated during post-flashover fire conditions can be difficult to interpret
because they do not offer insight as to where a fire originated. Such damages are only
associated with, and result from, the ventilation openings that supplied fresh air during
the course of a fire.

3. Pre-flashover damages indicative of origin can and often do survive post-flashover
exposures. In particular, origin patterns located away from fresh air supplying vents
experience a comparatively reduced continued exposure during post-flashover conditions.
Such a reduced exposure, may allow for pre-flashover damage patterns to persist for

19

some time, although there is a limit. Continued post-flashover heat exposures are likely
to eventually destroy pre-flashover patterns related to origin.

4. Investigators must be able to identify and then segregate fire scene damages that may be
attributed to pre-flashover vs. post-flashover fire conditions. It is those damages which
cannot be attributed to post-flashover fire conditions that may provide the most
substantive clues for initial development of hypotheses regarding origin.

The origin matrix analysis offers a systematic thought process to more effectively understand
and interpret damages observed at a fire scene. Although only qualitative in nature, the origin
matrix analysis is extraordinarily useful in the investigation of fire incidents. With practice, this
type of analysis becomes second nature, and may be applied without the need for an investigator
to physically diagram each hypothetical scenario.

It should be recognized that the origin matrix analysis does not by itself guarantee accuracy in
origin determination. It is simply another tool for analysis and should not be applied in isolation
from other aspects of an investigation. The science of fire investigation requires consideration of
a much larger system of evidence and information beyond fire damage alone, to include facts,
circumstances, and data from other sources like witnesses.
x,xi
As with any analytical tool, the
origin matrix analysis is best used in conjunction with other fire investigation approaches and
analyses.

i
NFPA 921, 2011, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 2011 Edition, NFPA, Quincy, MA.
ii
Fire Protection Handbook, 20
th
Edition National Fire Protection Association, 2008 (Section 2, Chapter 4,
Dynamics of Compartment Fire Growth).
iii
Dehaan, John; Icove, David, Kirks Fire Investigation, Seventh Edition, Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey, 2012.
iv
Fleischmann, Charles. Backdraft Phenomena. NIST-GCR-94-646, November 1993.
v
Zhixin Hu, Yunyong Utiskul, James G. Quintiere, and Arnaud Trouve. A Comparison between Observed and
Simulated Flame Structures in Poorly Ventilated Compartment Fires. Fire Safety Sciene Proceedings of the
Eighth International Symposium, 2005.
vi
Yunyong Utiskul, James G. Quintiere, Ali S. Rangwala, Brian A. Ringwelski, Kaoru Wakatsuki, and Tomohiro
Naruse. Compartment Fire Phenomena Under Limited Ventilation. Fire Safety Journal, Volume 40, Issue 4, June
2005.
vii
Cox, Andrew, Damage Assessment and Origin Determination, Fire and Arson Investigator, July 2001 (Volume
51, Number 4).
viii
Carman, Steven, Improving theUnderstanding of Post-FlashoverFire Behavior, Proceedings of the 3
rd

International Symposium on Fire Investigations Science and Technology (ISFI). Cincinatti OH, 2008.
ix
Carman, Steven, Progressive Burn Pattern Development in Post-Flashover Fires, Fire and Materials
Conference Proceedings, San Francisco, CA. 2009.
x
Avato, Steven; Cox, Andrew, Science and Circumstance, Fire and Arson Investigator, April 2009.
xi
Geiman, Justin; Lord, James. Systematic Analysis of Witness Statements for Fire Investigation. Fire
Technology, 2011.

Origin Matrix Analysis Methodology

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Origin Matrix Analysis Methodology

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Published in Fire and Arson Investigator, Journal of the International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI),

Volume 64, Issue 1, July 2013.

Вам также может понравиться