The design and construction of the tower itself is somewhat problematic as well, though the issues here could not readily be addressed while keeping this experiment possible from both financial and other practical concerns. The materials used in the construction of the tower and the layout of the completed tower both caused significant differences from a real world fire, and though the Fire Dynamics Simulator still managed to make relatively accurate predictions of the spread of temperatures, gases, and smoke when compared to the experimental data, these did not bear much direct relation to real-world conditions. The study, therefore, did not test the reliability or validity of the Fire Dynamics Simulator's modeling capabilities in as significant a way as might have been liked. As the conducting of such a controlled experiment on a real-world scale would be highly impractical if not impossible, however, these flaws must be considered unavoidable.

The analysis of the data showed that the Fire Dynamics Simulator very closely predicted the patterns of movement of both smoke and gases and the rising temperatures in various areas, though it consistently predicted greater rises in both temperatures and gas levels, as well as earlier occurrence. That is, the rises, peaks, and falls of the experimental data match those of the Fire Dynamic Simulator's modeled predictions almost exactly in most cases, but the rises occur later in time and the peaks are generally lower than those predicted. This means that, although the model definitely has strong predictive powers that closely mirror the timeline and severity of a fire and its spread of temperature, smoke, and gases, it tends to predict more heat and...

There is certainly reasonable cause to make this assumption, but it is made somewhat blithely by the authors in this context. They assert this, and the transfer of heat through the staircase -- also unaccounted for in the model -- as the source of discrepancies in the data provided by the model and what was observed through experiment, and while there is valid reason to believe that this was indeed the case, further experimentation is needed in order to verify this assumption. Though these unaccounted-for details would certainly have some bearing on the method and progress of heat transfer as it occurred, actual measurement of these effects is necessary in order to determine if this was indeed the sole or even primary cause in the discrepancies noticed. It could simply be that the Fire Dynamics Simulator model itself, though certainly correct in the shape of its data, is calibrated incorrectly, or was so during this experiment. As this would go directly to the primary research question the authors were investigating, it seems an especially egregious detail to go unmeasured.
This experiment was generally sound, and did led to some useful data and conclusions. The quality of the data and its conclusions after analysis would both have been greatly improved by increased attention to detail and a decreased reliance on assumption, however reasonable. The ultimate result is a preliminary endorsement for the Fire Dynamics Simulator, but more testing is require before its full validity is established.